Cheltenham Betting / Jack Houghton / 13 March 2009 / 1 Comments

Jack Houghton looks back on the lessons the 2009 Festival has taught us.

Year after year, lessons are learnt during the Festival; most of them forgotten by the time it comes around again. So this year it makes sense to write them down.

Remember, Cheltenham is different.

Yes, yes... there are all the emotional clichés. It's the Mecca of jump racing, except with a longer queue for the toilet. And with more Irish priests present. It's the Olympics of jump racing, except the same place gets awarded it every year. And there's no synchronised swimming. In a preview last year, I recall going with: "Cheltenham is to jump racing what the Oscars are to film."

In reality, none of the comparisons above do the Festival justice. I doubt those trying to drum up attendance at Mecca start their previews with "the Cheltenham of religious festivals"; so we should leave the comparisons aside. The Festival is what it is: a racing event so much more important than what surrounds it, to the extent that those involved with the sport - whether owner, trainer, jockey or punter - will happily forego more lucrative successes elsewhere for the experience of winning, just one event, on racing's hallowed ground. There I go again... [Enter Alasdair Down, stage left...]

Although all this flowery bunkum makes a data lover like me (hey, it beats internet porn) extremely uncomfortable, it's worth remembering that because Cheltenham is considered so different, then the major players behave differently towards it. Horses are trained with a Festival peak the aim. Jockeys are fired up in a way you just don't see at Fakenham. And races are chock-full of talent: unlike the majority of jump races, which typically have a wide spectrum of ability on view.

It's hard to quantify the effect exactly, but all of this altered behaviour certainly requires more carefully considered - if not completely altered - betting processes.

Over the last 18 months or so, I've gently adjusted my betting models to place less emphasis on recent form: looking more at the known potential ability of a horse and considering its chances of re-attaining that level in the upcoming race. As a general rule, I think punters overemphasise recent form - as I have done in the past - and nowhere is this more apparent than at Cheltenham.

Punjabi is a case in point. Third in the Champion last year, many punters would have been put off his chances by the fall at Kempton in the Christmas Hurdle and a third behind Ashkazar at Wincanton last time. Those that looked beyond these two reversals, on courses and in conditions very different to the Festival test he faced on Tuesday, would have seen a horse return four wins after last year's third, and would have been rewarded with a very lucrative price.

Unfortunately, despite having Punjabi down on my "pure" tissue as a [12.0] shot, I became one of those who failed to look beyond those recent starts. The race was still a winner for me - I laid Binocular heavily - but, in retrospect, I'm not even sure that was such a smart play, despite the win. I was too busy pooh-poohing the solidity of his recent wins and failed to recognise that, on his Supreme Novices' performance alone from the year before, his price, whilst short, wasn't ridiculous.

An article by Nick Fox I read years ago suggested that punters should look at the best speed rating returned by a horse lining up at Cheltenham and seriously question those yet to post a figure at least 90 per cent as good as the best in the race.

The method is crude, but highlights that Festival races are run at a pace generally well above most other jump races. Horses who have looked impressive when winning small field affairs run at a slow early pace will not necessarily shine when forced to run the fast early sectionals required at Cheltenham. And despite being crude, Fox's method has remained as remarkably effective this year as it has previously.

Ok, it's not much help now, but give it a try at the 2010 Festival. In some races it will do little more than reduce the list of likely candidates to a manageable number; but it's a start.